Richard Itayi Jambo v Church of the Province of Central Africa and Others

The applicant was employed as a boarding master at Daramombe High School and occupied house No. 2 Daramombe Mission. He was originally appointed by the 1st respondent in April 2000. In 2007, a dispute arose between the 1st respondent (Church of the Province of Central Africa) and the Diocesan Trustees for the Diocese of Harare regarding control of church properties. The applicant was subsequently reappointed to the post of boarding master with effect from 1 October 2011 by the Anglican Diocese of Harare/Anglican Church of the Province of Zimbabwe (Bishop Kunonga's faction). Following the Supreme Court judgment in SC 48/12, which ordered the Diocesan Trustees for the Diocese of Harare to deliver all properties to the 1st respondent, the applicant was served with a notice of eviction on 12 December 2012. He filed an urgent chamber application seeking a stay of eviction, arguing he was not a party to the Supreme Court proceedings and there was no basis to evict him.

• Whether the urgent chamber application complied with Rule 241(1) of the High Court Rules requiring Form 29B
• Whether the application was genuinely urgent
• Whether the applicant failed to disclose material facts to the court
• Whether the 2nd respondent (Anglican Diocese of Masvingo) was properly cited as a legal persona

The urgent chamber application was dismissed with costs against the applicant.

1. Failure to comply with Rule 241(1) of the High Court Rules by not filing Form 29B, without a proper application for condonation supported by reasons, renders an urgent chamber application fatally defective and liable to dismissal. 2. An applicant has a duty to disclose all material facts to the court, and failure to disclose material facts (such as the source of one's appointment and employment status) warrants dismissal of the application. 3. Urgency is not established merely by acting when faced with imminent consequences; it arises when the applicant first becomes aware of the need to act. Delay in approaching the court from the time when the need to act arose defeats a claim of urgency. 4. A diocese is not a legal persona capable of being sued but is merely a geographical/administrative area within a church province and should not be cited as a party to proceedings.

The court made observations about the cavalier attitude of legal practitioners toward compliance with court rules, noting that condonation for non-compliance is not automatic and should not be treated as something that is "always there for the asking." The court emphasized that legal practitioners must be reminded of their obligation to comply with the rules of court. The court also commented that the application appeared to have been filed merely to buy time for the applicant to avoid eviction, rather than being a genuine urgent matter. In awarding costs, the court noted the multiple defects in the application: citing a non-existent persona, hiding material facts from the court, non-compliance with rules, and lack of genuine urgency.

This case reinforces several important procedural principles in Zimbabwean law: (1) the strict requirement for compliance with High Court Rules, particularly in urgent applications; (2) the duty of full and frank disclosure in urgent applications, particularly ex parte or semi-urgent matters; (3) the principle that urgency is determined by when the applicant became aware of the need to act, not when consequences materialize; (4) the proper identification and citation of legal personas in litigation. The case also provides context to the implementation of the landmark Supreme Court decision SC 48/12 regarding the Anglican Church property dispute in Zimbabwe, clarifying that dioceses are not separate legal entities but administrative divisions of the Province.